Fukushima Spiking All of a Sudden (1 Viewer)

[MrEMann83]

Bump for good advice on how to mitigate this disaster on a personal level!!

 

[Tapxe]

Because the U.S. media is a joke and would rather report on Miley Cyrus being an inbred or whatever pro wrestling style theatrics are going on in D.C. than actual, significant world events. Of course, I also fault the American people for having an appetite for insignificant garbage. It's like an abusive codependent relationship. Just a vicious circle of awfulness on both sides.

Plus 1/3rd of all US citizens live within 50 miles of a reactor. I doubt anyone wants that many folks recognizing just how vulnerable they are.

http://www.psr.org/resources/evacuation-zone-nuclear-reactors.html

Do you live within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor? One third of Americans do. Property contaminated by nuclear materials is not covered by insurance, so if your house is affected, you could be displaced permanently and lose everything. Use the tool below to find out if you are within an evacuation zone and are at risk. Also notice the number of people who would have to be evacuated if there was an accident at the plant closest to you. Do you really think that is possible? We don't.
The 25th anniversary of Chernobyl and the continuing crisis at Fukushima -- both Level 7 nuclear disasters -- are clear reminders that standard evacuation zones cannot protect the public from a nuclear accident. Current NRC regulations stipulate a 10 mile evacuation zone around nuclear plants. This is clearly insufficient and 50 miles has been recommended.

NRC: Operating Nuclear Power Reactors (by Location or Name)

 

[GhostFace]

Bump for good advice on how to mitigate this disaster on a personal level!!

snopes.com: Fukushima Emergency


snopes.com: Underground Nuclear Explosion at Crippled Japan Atomic Plant Shocks World


Personally, I think you can chill out.

 

[Tapxe]

snopes.com: Fukushima Emergency


snopes.com: Underground Nuclear Explosion at Crippled Japan Atomic Plant Shocks World


Personally, I think you can chill out.

This doesn't address much of what the video discussed. There was a short bit on the ocean image which was discussed earlier in the thread. The key things are that they are storing radioactive materials in shoddy emergency containers with plastic piping, are planning to manually remove rods which are normally removed by computer controlled processes due to the tight tolerances and dangers, have no idea if the rods are intact or broken, and if anything goes south, the only safe place will be the southern hemisphere.

I'm not freaking out, but the reality of the situation is such that we need to ween off nuke power in favor of other before we have an uninhabitable earth for 1000 years.

 

[efil4stnias]

snopes.com: Fukushima Emergency


snopes.com: Underground Nuclear Explosion at Crippled Japan Atomic Plant Shocks World


Personally, I think you can chill out.

with regards to the snopes on Fukushima Emergency. That model in the link is NOT the same model at 7:35 in the clip.

NOT the same. 2 different models.

But the real takeaway from the video isnt about what happened. ITs about whats IS and ABOUT to happen. They are storing 1000s of tonnes of radioactive water ON SITE in crudely built containers that at any time, can leak/spill etc which would create a NEW issue.

Further, they are about to attempt to remove the spent fuel rods from the pool(s) manually. As Expatriate explained, normally this is done by robotics and computers since the MARGIN OF ERROR is so tight vs the mere touching of two rods and what that would ultimately do.

Think about that. A guy in a crane, who cant see the pool/rods other than what he sees on camera ( im assuming some sort of camera rig will be attached to the arm so the operator can see clearly what is going on ) is responsible to lift these rods out to dispose of them.

Now reports are that two rods coming in contact would not be enough to create an "uncontrolled" reaction. Further, the removal of the rods was slated to start NOV 2013. So...is it underway? I would also imagine that the removal would be one rod at a time. Not multiple rods.

So little information is what is sparking this debate. Thats part of the issue. The other part, as pointed out in the video early on, is THERE IS NO PROTOCOL written or otherwise, for the Fukushima scenario. They are writing this as they go ( TEPCO ).

To completely be oblivious to it is folly. But at this point, folks are having to put faith in TEPCO that they are doing this in a way to fully mitigate any real danger. Based on their track record, many are having a hard time doing so.

 

[bclemms]

This doesn't address much of what the video discussed. There was a short bit on the ocean image which was discussed earlier in the thread. The key things are that they are storing radioactive materials in shoddy emergency containers with plastic piping, are planning to manually remove rods which are normally removed by computer controlled processes due to the tight tolerances and dangers, have no idea if the rods are intact or broken, and if anything goes south, the only safe place will be the southern hemisphere.

I'm not freaking out, but the reality of the situation is such that we need to ween off nuke power in favor of other before we have an uninhabitable earth for 1000 years.

We don't need to ween off nuclear power, if anything we need to rely on it more.

Now, I don't think we need to set a plant in an area that is vulnerable to massive earthquakes, huge typhoons and tsunamis. It also isn't a good idea to set it up on the shore of oceans which is the base of such a massive food source either. Set up some of these things in SE Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and places well inland, extremely rural and isolated where a massive spill can be contained. Then build them to levels stronger than the strongest acts of god with giant insulated pools that can contain the spill in the worst case scenario. It won't be cheap to build them but at the same time, it eliminates these huge risks.

I live 50 miles from one. Grand Gulf nuclear power plant isn't on an ocean but it is on the Mississippi river. It also sits in one of the highest tornado frequency areas in the world. It is a matter of time before a major tornado hits it. It may be 200 years from now but it will eventually happen. If that thing spills out into the Ms river then suddenly the Ms River, gulf of Mexico and Atlantic would be contaminated. Yeah, it's a 1 million chance that it could happen on any given day but over the coarse of a million days it becomes more likely than not.

Ultimately, I don't know why we didn't take all that bail out money and use it to focus on nothing but energy infrastructure. Huge solar grids in the Southwest, huge wind farms in the central and southern plains and massive hydro electric generators that use tidal flow in the NW along with hydro electric using some of our huge powerful rivers.

 

[Tapxe]

We don't need to ween off nuclear power, if anything we need to rely on it more.

Now, I don't think we need to set a plant in an area that is vulnerable to massive earthquakes, huge typhoons and tsunamis. It also isn't a good idea to set it up on the shore of oceans which is the base of such a massive food source either. Set up some of these things in SE Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and places well inland, extremely rural and isolated where a massive spill can be contained. Then build them to levels stronger than the strongest acts of god with giant insulated pools that can contain the spill in the worst case scenario. It won't be cheap to build them but at the same time, it eliminates these huge risks.

I live 50 miles from one. Grand Gulf nuclear power plant isn't on an ocean but it is on the Mississippi river. It also sits in one of the highest tornado frequency areas in the world. It is a matter of time before a major tornado hits it. It may be 200 years from now but it will eventually happen. If that thing spills out into the Ms river then suddenly the Ms River, gulf of Mexico and Atlantic would be contaminated. Yeah, it's a 1 million chance that it could happen on any given day but over the coarse of a million days it becomes more likely than not.

Ultimately, I don't know why we didn't take all that bail out money and use it to focus on nothing but energy infrastructure. Huge solar grids in the Southwest, huge wind farms in the central and southern plains and massive hydro electric generators that use tidal flow in the NW along with hydro electric using some of our huge powerful rivers.

Sorry, but I disagree with expanding nuke power. Man made is just not good enough considering the risks when we could invest in development of alternative and renewable sources that are not going to ruin the earth if something goes wrong. It wouldn't cost any more than these super sites you are talking about and the risk of making the planet uninhabitable isn't there.

 

[bclemms]

Sorry, but I disagree with expanding nuke power. Man made is just not good enough considering the risks when we could invest in development of alternative and renewable sources that are not going to ruin the earth if something goes wrong. It wouldn't cost any more than these super sites you are talking about and the risk of making the planet uninhabitable isn't there.

A nuclear plant in the middle of uninhabited desert doesn't run the risk of melting down the earth or anywhere near it. Worse case scenario, a relatively small area would be off limits to humans in a place where humans don't go anyway and in a place where there is no food or water supply.


One nuclear plant produces more power per dollar than solar or wind could ever dream of doing.

Again, I am all for clean energy. I really think hydroelectric power is the biggest answer and one that has been around forever. Just using the power of the tides can produce massive amounts of electricity and it can be done fairly cheap, particularly in the NW and NE where there are huge tides.

The US and Canada should get together to do the largest clean energy plant in the world at the bay of Fundy. Twice everyday the bay fills and empties of a billion tonnes of water during each tide cycle—that’s more than the flow of all the world’s freshwater rivers combined.

One massive plant could power the entire Eastern seaboard and Eastern Canada.

Then in several places along the Ms River some massive turbines could power the central and southern US.

On the Pacific, some areas that get incredibly high tides that could power the West Coast. The SW could go on solar and the plains could use wind.

 

[Elija Nevett]

We don't need to ween off nuclear power, if anything we need to rely on it more.

Now, I don't think we need to set a plant in an area that is vulnerable to massive earthquakes, huge typhoons and tsunamis. It also isn't a good idea to set it up on the shore of oceans which is the base of such a massive food source either. Set up some of these things in SE Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and places well inland, extremely rural and isolated where a massive spill can be contained. Then build them to levels stronger than the strongest acts of god with giant insulated pools that can contain the spill in the worst case scenario. It won't be cheap to build them but at the same time, it eliminates these huge risks.

I live 50 miles from one. Grand Gulf nuclear power plant isn't on an ocean but it is on the Mississippi river. It also sits in one of the highest tornado frequency areas in the world. It is a matter of time before a major tornado hits it. It may be 200 years from now but it will eventually happen. If that thing spills out into the Ms river then suddenly the Ms River, gulf of Mexico and Atlantic would be contaminated. Yeah, it's a 1 million chance that it could happen on any given day but over the coarse of a million days it becomes more likely than not.

Ultimately, I don't know why we didn't take all that bail out money and use it to focus on nothing but energy infrastructure. Huge solar grids in the Southwest, huge wind farms in the central and southern plains and massive hydro electric generators that use tidal flow in the NW along with hydro electric using some of our huge powerful rivers.

YAFOS.
The half life (time) of radioactive material is such that current non earthquake zones could become very unstable from a tectonics standpoint. How is something this bad for this long the answer???

 

[bclemms]

YAFOS.
The half life (time) of radioactive material is such that current non earthquake zones could become very unstable from a tectonics standpoint. How is something this bad for this long the answer???

Excellent point. Like I said though, worst case is it becomes limited to a very small area isolated from the rest of the world.

Also, I'm comparing nuclear to using oil and coal to produce energy. Oil and Coal also release harmful toxins into the air for very long periods and neither are renewable resources.

The obvious answer is clean renawable energy.

 

[MrEMann83]

Again, Ill ask. Do we here in the Southeast need to avoid any certain foods? What can we do to limit or completely avoid being contaminated by the isotopes?

 

[St. Ouachita]

Eat only Atlantic-sourced salmon. Tuna & other seafood from the Gulf and Atlantic I imagine would be o.k.

I would question West Coast sourced produce and livestock at some point.

I may be off on this, but just trying to answer your question. That's what we're doing in my house.

 

[Tapxe]

A San Francisco beach has five times the safe level fueling concerns over Fukushima's impact
The findings - reaching over 150 micro-REM per hour - prompted federal officials to launch an investigation
Officials said they were 'befuddled'
Snow in Missouri has been found to contain double the normal radiation amount
In September, a BBC report said radiation readings around the Fukushima power plant were 18 times higher than previously reported


Read more: DOUBLE the normal amount of radiation found in Missouri snow and San Francisco beach | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Severum]

That appears to be typical Daily Mail/Infowars fear mongering and disinformation. From the SF Gate:

Coast getting little radiation from Fukushima disaster
David Perlman
Updated 4:40 pm, Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Scientists reported Wednesday that low levels of radiation from Japan's Fukushima disaster first detected off the California coast two years ago have been declining ever since and remain well below any levels considered unsafe for humans.

The scientists, from UC Santa Cruz and Stony Brook University in New York, were responding to public concerns raised this week by an Internet video claiming that dangerously high radiation levels had been detected in the sands of Pacifica State Beach.

The video has gone viral and shows an unidentified man carrying a commercial Geiger counter that displays radiation counts purportedly rising to "alert" levels as he walks along the beach often frequented by surfers.

An Internet "news" site is claiming that news of the radioactivity is being suppressed by unnamed government sources.

Geiger counters are unsophisticated and do measure radiation levels, but they are unable detect the source of radioactivity. More sophisticated tests of beach sand in the Pacifica area by public health officials show that the radiation has come from natural sources - most probably from ancient rocks eroded in the bluffs above.

"There is no public health risk at California beaches due to radioactivity related to events at Fukushima," the California Department of Public Health said Tuesday.

"Recent tests by the San Mateo County Public Health Department show that elevated levels of radiation at Half Moon Bay are due to naturally occurring materials and not radioactivity associated with the Fukushima incident," it said.

From the CEO of the company which makes the Geiger counter shown in the video:

California Beach Radiation Not From Fukushima
Posted: January 4, 2014 by: Dan Sythe

A lot of concern has been expressed about recent reports and videos showing high levels of radiation on a beach in Half Moon Bay, just South of Pillar Point Harbor. It has been attributed to Fukushima. Local officials have been quoted as saying they donʻt know what it is, but donʻt worry about it. See local story.

Here is what we have learned so far: The radioactive areas of the beach seem to be associated with dark sand below the high tide level. The levels detected are about 5 to 10 times what you would normally expect to find on a beach.

The radionuclides are in the NORM class of radioactive substances, not from Fukushima. NORM stands for Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material. We put a sample in a Multichannel Analyzer and found Radium 226 and Thorium 232.

If the sand were contaminated by radiation from Fukushima it would show Cesium 137. See spectra below from contaminated area of Fukushima Prefecture. The same instrument is identifying Cesium 137 rather than Radium and Thorium.

 

[Bayouboy]

A nuclear plant in the middle of uninhabited desert doesn't run the risk of melting down the earth or anywhere near it. Worse case scenario, a relatively small area would be off limits to humans in a place where humans don't go anyway and in a place where there is no food or water supply.

No water supply, no nuclear power plant. Just sayin'